Constitutional
conservatives and social conservatives: An uneasy coalition

By Paul M. Weyrichweb
posted November 6, 2000

The
post-war conservative movement, which began with the near-nomination of
Robert Taft to be the GOP nominee for president in 1952 and then succeeded
with the nomination of Barry Goldwater as the GOP nominee for president
in 1964, was largely focused on issues based on the Constitution of the
United States.

The political figures in the various states who promoted both Taft and
Goldwater were very devoted to the Constitution. They understood history.
Thus they knew that the United States was unique in history in that it
had preserved freedom of the individual from the tyranny of government
longer than had been done anywhere since the Roman Republic.

Among the conservative leaders of that era there was intense interest
in the famous Second Amendment, debated to this day as the issue of gun
control, and in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects
the individual against unreasonable search and seizure by the government.
The Tenth Amendment was revered because it said that powers not specifically
enumerated in the Constitution were to be left to the states and to the
people.

But conservatives proved unable to elect a president and to govern a
nation until they added to their ranks the religious right. The social
conservatives were largely Religious Southern Democrats and urban Catholic
Democrats who could not stomach what their party had done on school prayer,
busing, abortion, the equal rights amendment and other such social issues.
They broke ranks and joined with the Constitutional conservatives to form
that governing majority which made the 12 years of Presidents Reagan and
Bush so pleasant to remember.

The movement continued along after the defeat of George Bush for a second
term and after a couple of years also helped to elect a Republican Congress.
That movement has kept the Republicans in the majority ever since.

But it is an uneasy coalition. That is because while most of the Constitutional
conservatives understand and respect the positions taken by social issue
conservatives, the reverse is often not true. The fissures have become
more pronounced as the federal government has sought greater and greater
power.

Constitutional
conservatives are in a constant state of alarm. Social conservatives don't
see what the problem is. Thus when Elian Gonzales was seized at gunpoint
by federal agents armed to the teeth and taken from relatives in Miami
on Good Friday of this year, to be given to his father who was under the
control of Fidel Castro, Constitutional conservatives were in tears, believing
that they had witnessed the end of their form of government in this nation.
But social conservatives cheered because little Elian was reunited with
his father and that supposedly was a victory for family values.

When the issue of "mandatory filtering" was before the Congress
(that is to say demanding that libraries filter out certain materials
or lose all federal funds), Constitutional conservatives blanched because
they said the federal government had no business telling local governments
what to do and besides, if the government can define what is bad today,
it can redefine what is bad tomorrow and that is likely to include guns
and who knows what else. But social conservatives said that pornography
is harmful to kids and if the Constitution has to be bent a bit to stop
it then so be it because this social evil simply must be confronted head
on. And when internet gambling was a red hot issue in Congress, Constitutional
conservatives did not want to give federal authorities the power to look
at your credit cards for possible gambling usage because once the precedent
is set, the government will be using that power to look for lots of other
things as well. But social conservatives said gambling was doing so much
harm to middle class families that it was well worth setting the precedent.

And so it has gone. The most recent example is the federal standard for
drunkenness, pushed through Congress by social conservatives over the
objections of the Constitutionalists. This unfortunate break in unity
is permitting very bad things to happen. Forces that do not have the best
interests of this country at heart are taking advantage of the split.
Both sides need to sit down and examine what is happening before it is
too late. It is certainly true that these social ills that the cultural
conservatives are worried about are corrupting, and if left unchecked
will destroy the society. But it is also true that an all-powerful federal
government is, as we have seen with all too many examples in the 20th
Century, in many ways even more destructive because it leaves the individual
defenseless and with no choice at all.

Surely with the sort of clever minds that have surfaced in this movement
in recent years there must be a way to find a solution to these problems
which both sides can live with. Grover Norquist, of Americans for Tax
Reform, thought he had the right formula when he proposed the notion of
the "leave us alone" coalition. He comes closer than has anyone
else that has advanced an idea, but so far the social conservatives, given
the background of many of them as Democrats, are very attracted to federal
government action and so they aren't quite buying that coalition. Clearly
we all need to try again and again before there are no more chances to
try again because an all-powerful federal government will have declared
that none of us is useful to the state and therefore all of our opinions
must be suppressed.